Bobby Wyche v. Bryan Pulley ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-7184
BOBBY DEONTRAY WYCHE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BRYAN LEE PULLEY, Administrator of Nash Correctional Institution, Nashville,
North Carolina,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:18-cv-01014-LCB-JLW)
Submitted: March 24, 2020 Decided: April 9, 2020
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin P. Bradley, I, KEVIN P. BRADLEY, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Durham, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bobby Deontray Wyche seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Wyche’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254(2018) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). A certificate of
appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2018). When the district court denies relief on the merits,
a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural
grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is
debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional
right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wyche has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Wyche’s motion for a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2